Gays getting married in a Church is an issue for the Church to decide upon and not the government. Asking the governement to legislate a Church to marry gays is wrong and should not happen.

Gays being married by an officer of the court in a civil ceremony that grants all the rights a couple has under law should of course be legal. I have friends, a male & female, who were married in a civil ceremony because they are not religious. Are they less married than someone who had a ceremony in a Church? Absolutely not.

That's precisely the problem Dave, I have no problem with civil unions for the same legal benefits as married couples, but any homosexual relationship no matter how exclusive or how you look at it cannot by the very definition of marriage be marriage, the definition of which has been retained throughout all of human existance where marriage has been practised has been between two persons of opposite gender.

In times of yore marriage was a political tool, only those without importance were generally able to choose whom they married, although many could and did partner together with those they wanted outside of marriage. That doesn't change the sin or crime of adultery (if you live somewhere adultery is illegal).

Religions can't be forced to perform the ceremonies, 1: because they don't receive federal funding, and 2: because of the fact that in the dogma of most churches acting on homosexual urges is a sin (temptation is normal, but the sin lies in acting on temptation).

[ 05-11-2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Morgie and Djinn, I agree with most all of your posts, and hope I did not contradict them.

Hey, Dave, I do want to point out a problem with the argument that gays should be allowed a "Marriage" as opposed to a "Civil Union."

Gender-specific terminology is legally used in society. My birth certificate will always say male, and so will my driver's license. Nothing I do can change that. In fact, in most jurisdicitions even having a transgender operation would not allow me to change that. Nothing I do can MAKE the government call me "Female."

Why is this permissible? The anser is twofold:(1) Because the words "male" and "female" retain inherent worth in the information they hold. It allows you to know how to medically treat me, it allows one to take statistical data and plan for simple things (such as how many bathrooms of each to install in a railroad station) to complex things (such as how to address breast cancer in society). (2) Because the laws all state that regardless of whether my documentation says "male" or "female" I am to be given equal treatment under the law.

Now, to bring the analogy back to civil unions and marriage -- you can surely see how distinguishing between the two types of couple IN NAME ONLY would not offend the constitution.

Food for thought.

I'd just like to say - fair enough.

To be honest - I always <s>thought</s> hoped that I would be married in a church and all that. Civil union is enough for me at this time. I don't consider myself hugely religious, but I do know that there are many gays/lesbians that are who would still feel discriminated against in the church for not being able to marry.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But for now, I am happy with Civil unions. It's just a matter of time before something changes in the church.

Good debate/discussion guys. :D

Not true and with a fine point- There are churches that will perform same-sex marriages and the numbers of those churches is growing, not diminishing. I haven't even accounted for pagan religions, some of which (like mine) elevate homosexuality to a special and divine status.

So in fact Religion does accept Dave, just not all religion. ;)

[ 05-11-2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

That's precisely the problem Dave, I have no problem with civil unions for the same legal benefits as married couples, but any homosexual relationship no matter how exclusive or how you look at it cannot by the very definition of marriage be marriage, the definition of which has been retained throughout all of human existance where marriage has been practised has been between two persons of opposite gender.

</font>[/QUOTE]Nope, history disputes this clearly. In days of Yore Marriage was a a property contract- the husband owned the wives- plural for a reason becasue marriage wasn't about just two people in them olden days. ;)


One thing for certain we can say from the history of marriage- the definition of the word and the nature of a married relationship has always grown and changed.

And what happens to freedom of religion?

Replace a tyrant with a tyrant is that it? What's the difference again?

Replace a tyrant with a tyrant is that it? What's the difference again? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? Where do I advocate tyranny? Please elaborate.

And what happens to freedom of religion? </font>[/QUOTE]It's called the flock voting their paychecks.

No need to mess with freedom of Religion while we have freedom to petion grievances against the governemnt. The issue of Gay Martial Union is about the laws and governemnt- not church. When we live in a theocracy then church rules can decide who gets LEGALLY joined in a two person maritial union and who doesn't.